Green 2008

Sport Development in Australia
Management Review, 2008,and

11,Finland
225-251 225
© 2008 SMAANZ
Policy, Politics and Path Dependency:

Sport Development in Australia and Finland
Mick Green and Shane Collins
Loughborough University
KEYWORDS: sport development, elite sport development, Sport for All,

path dependency
Sport development as a public policy priority has historically been on the
periphery of governments’ political agendas. This is not the case in the
early twenty-first century however. Over the past decade, in nations as
diverse as Canada, China, Germany, Norway, Poland, Singapore and the
United Kingdom, public policies for sport development-related activity
have increased in salience. This article reviews and analyses national sport
development policy (across the mass-elite sport spectrum) in Australia and
Finland; two countries with quite distinct political, cultural and sporting
backgrounds. The analysis explores whether a path dependency approach
can help towards a better understanding of sport development activity
in each country. Our conclusions suggest that Australia (elite sport) and
Finland (Sport for All) have remained on quite specific sport development
pathways with little deviation, despite a few programs created in Australia
to increase the levels of sport participation for targeted groups such as
school children, women and indigenous Australians.
Historically, government interest in sport as an area of public policy could be

characterised as little more than a passing interest with intermittent and variable
levels of intervention. However, over the past decade at least, in nations as diverse
as Canada, China, Germany, Norway, Poland, Singapore and the United Kingdom
(UK), public policies for sport development-related activity have increased in
salience (see Bergsgard, Houlihan, Mangset, Nødland, & Rommetvedt, 2007; De
Bosscher, Bingham, Shibli, van Bottenburg, & De Knop, 2008; Green & Houlihan,
2005; Houlihan & Green, 2008). While the expansion of government interest in sport
has followed somewhat different paths, in many countries sport and government have
been inextricably linked across a diverse range of policy issues including health,
The authors are with the Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, School of Sport and
Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, UK, LE113TU. E-mail for Mick Green:
m.j.green@lboro.ac.uk
226 Green and Collins
social inclusion, community development, education and the achievement of elite

sporting success (Houlihan, 1997). The nature of government intervention in sport
has also been broad and wide-ranging with growing state regulatory activity (such
as the licensing of coaches, control of doping, control of the sale of broadcasting
rights for sports events and licensing of sport clubs), increasing levels of funding,
rising numbers of cities bidding to host the summer Olympic Games and growing
international support for the World Anti-Doping Code (Houlihan, 2005).
Against this backdrop of the expanding political salience of sport development
activity, this article has three main aims. The first aim is to provide some detail on
the policy trajectories for sport development in Australia and Finland, two countries
with quite distinct political, cultural and sporting backgrounds. (Our focus is on
national level policy developments and in particular on the relationships between
government/government agencies and national sporting organisations.)1 The second
aim is to provide a theoretically informed analysis of these sport policy trajectories.
Finally, we must not forget that national policies for sport development have
“local” consequences. Therefore, a third aim is to provide some (tentative at this
stage) comments on the potential ramifications, for practitioners and management
professionals, of the particular “policy paths” adopted in each country. Specifically,
we interrogate the relative emphasis given to the argument that, on the one hand,
“policies determine politics” or, on the other hand, whether “politics determines
policy” (Heinelt, 2005; Lowi, 1972). The latter asserts that “distinctive and durable
national policymaking styles are causally linked to the policies of states” (Freeman,
1985, p. 469). The former, on the other hand, suggests that:
Policy change is not only the result of windows of opportunity suddenly opening
as the result of some upheaval in the economic or political climate. Policy change
itself may open such windows by demonstrating that the previously unthinkable
has become doable. (Klein & Marmor, 2006, p.904)
In other words, is it the case that a country’s distinctive domestic national
political and cultural system shapes, to a large degree, the formulation of policy
development in different sectors? Or on the other hand, is it the case that policy
decisions—in sectors such as sport, and sub-sectors such as sport development—
are taken despite, and not because of, the broader political and cultural context of
the nation? In the case of elite sport development, for example, there is increasing
evidence that, although there are subtle domestic (national) variations in the ways
in which talented athletes are identified, supported and developed, many countries
display a large degree of policy homogeneity in this respect (Green & Oakley, 2001;
De Bosscher et al., 2008; Houlihan & Green, 2008).
A related theoretical concern is to explore the possibilities of “path
dependency” (see, for example, Pierson, 2000) as a potentially helpful mechanism
1 National sporting organisation (NSO) is the terminology used in Australia for a national governing body
of sport; for clarity, we also use this term in the Finnish case.
Sport Development in Australia and Finland 227
for better understanding the sport development policy process. For Evans (2005),
the essence of path dependence is that later (policy) possibilities are constrained by
earlier choices or events, foreclosing otherwise superior policy options. Whether
greater emphasis is placed on the broader explanation for policy developments,
that is, on the distinctive political, cultural and sporting history of a country, or
whether it is the policy sector that reveals greater explanatory power in this respect,
the “organising concept” (Kay, 2005, p. 554) of path dependency provides a
(potentially) useful mechanism with which we might analyse temporal processes
in sport development in Australia and Finland. To date, empirical and theoretical
analyses from this perspective have interrogated sectors as varied as health (Evans,
2005; Greener, 2002; Ross, 2007), agriculture (Kay, 2003), market reform (Liew,
2005), finance (Deeg, 2001), and the peace process in Northern Ireland (Ruane &
Todd, 2007). The sport policy sector has yet to come under such analytical scrutiny
however. This article is therefore a contribution towards filling this intellectual
lacuna.
Research Design
The selection of Australia and Finland as the case studies for analysis rests on
the following rationale: i) as Lavelle (2005, p. 753) notes, “Neo-liberalism has
dominated public-policy making [in Australia] since at least the 1980s”. By contrast,
Finland’s political system is firmly rooted in the social democratic tradition (Collins,
2008). Elite sport development has been a key policy priority for Australian federal
governments for at least the past 25 to 30 years (Green & Houlihan, 2005) whereas
the emphasis in Finland has been clearly on sport development priorities at the mass
participation level (Vuori, Lankenau, & Pratt, 2004). The relative salience of each
country’s political, social and cultural background for policy decisions taken in
relation to sport development across the elite—mass sporting spectrum is a primary
concern of this article.
We explore developments in Australia and Finland through a research design
that draws on empirical research conducted in both countries over the past four
to five years (Collins, 2008; Green & Houlihan, 2005). This includes a review of
government documents on sport development activity as well as a series of interviews
with senior officials in NSOs, government agencies and departments and with
academics and analysts writing on sport development issues. The themes around
which questions were asked of our interviewees included: the relative emphasis
placed upon elite sport activity by NSOs in relation to mass sport programs; the
degree to which and the ways in which government/government agencies play a
role in these activities; the relative stability of sport development policy priorities;
and an identification of potential drivers for change in the sport policy sector. The
remainder of the article is organised as follows. First, we provide an overview of the
key insights regarding our theoretical assumptions highlighted above. Second, the
policy trajectories of sport development in Australia and Finland are outlined. In the
third section we discuss the ways in which “sport development” has been framed in
both countries in the light of “contingent occurrences” (Mahoney, 2000, p. 501) in
the past, and provide conclusions regarding the salience of our theoretical insights
for sport development policy in comparative context.
Policy, Politics and Path Dependency

Underlying much of the discussion about policy processes and policy change is the
assumption that policy will change as a result of past experience or new information.
As Greener (2002) notes, policy learning “considers policy legacies to be one of
the most significant elements in determining present and future policy” (p. 162).
As such, policy learning has much in common with the concept of path dependency
which suggests that initial policy decisions can determine (or at least shape
substantially) future policy choices: that “the trajectory of change up to a certain
point constrains the trajectory after that point” (Kay, 2005, p. 553). Path dependency
literature argues that a specific policy trajectory, such as elite sport development
or Sport for All, is promoted via positive feedback mechanisms or the realisation
of increasing returns once on a particular path (Pierson, 2000). It is through a
variety of feedback mechanisms (see Deeg, 2001; Pierson, 2000) that action along
a particular path is therefore reinforced, while other potential policy options are
excluded. The notion of increasing returns captures two key elements central to path
dependency. First, increasing returns identify how the costs of switching from one
option to another will, in certain contexts, increase over time and second, attention
is drawn to issues of “timing and sequence, distinguishing formative moments
or conjectures from the periods that reinforce divergent paths” (Pierson, 2000, p.
251). Path dependency is also connected to the broader policy analysis literature
on the importance of institutions which, for Thelen and Steinmo (1992), are seen
as significant constraints and mediating factors in politics, which “leave their own
imprint” (p. 8). Whether the emphasis is on institutions as organisations or as sets of
values and beliefs (culture) there is a strong historical dimension which emphasises
the “relative autonomy of political institutions from the society in which they exist;
… and the unique patterns of historical development and the constraints they impose
on future choices” (Howlett & Ramesh, 1995, p. 27).
The relevance of institutionalism within sport policy analysis is well
documented. A number of authors have identified the organisational infrastructure
of UK Sport as a significant variable in shaping policy (see, for example, Green,
2003; Henry, 2001; Houlihan & White, 2002; Pickup, 1996; Roche, 1993), while
Krauss (1990) and Wilson (1994) draw similar conclusions with regard to the
United States as do Macintosh (1991) and Macintosh and Whitson (1990) in relation
to Canada. Allocation of functional responsibility for sport, federalism, the use of
“arm’s length” agencies, and the presence of a minister for sport are all seen as
having a discernible impact on sport policy and its implementation.
Perhaps more significant is the work of Esping-Andersen and his analysis of

welfare states which is based on the hypothesis that the socio-economic and cultural
foundations of a country will shape policy. Esping-Andersen (1990) identified
three types of welfare regime: liberal, conservative and social democratic, using
the private-public mix in welfare provision, the degree of de-commodification
and modes of stratification or solidarities as dependent variables. Liberal welfare
regimes, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and the UK
“reflect a political commitment to minimise the state, to individualise risks, and to
promote market solutions” and adopt a “narrow conception of what risks should
be considered ‘social’” (Esping-Andersen, 1999, p. 74ff). By contrast the social
democratic welfare regime is “virtually synonymous with the Nordic countries”
and is “committed to comprehensive risk coverage, generous benefit levels,
egalitarianism”, the de-commodification of welfare and the “fusion of universalism
with generosity” (Esping-Andersen, 1999, p. 78ff). Conservative welfare regimes,
such as Germany and Austria, are characterised by their blend of “status segmentation
and familialism”. Social security systems are based on occupational schemes and
corporatist status divisions. The “accent on compulsory social insurance” means that
“purely private market provision of welfare remains marginal” with the family and
non-profit, “voluntary” associations frequently affiliated with the Church playing an
important role (Esping-Andersen, 1999, p. 81ff).
Although the tripartite categorisation of welfare regimes has been criticised
on a number of grounds (Castles & Mitchell, 1990; Leibfried, 1990; Siaroff, 1994),
debate has tended to be around methodology and categorisation rather than challenges
to the underlying assumption that socio-economic and cultural historical factors
constrain contemporary policy development. If it is accepted that socio-economic
and cultural history creates policy predispositions then it is likely that these will
be reinforced and compounded by the accretion of policy decisions. Past decisions
consequently need to be seen as institutions in relation to current policy choices
with path dependency capturing the insight that “policy decisions accumulate over
time; a process of accretion can occur in a policy area that restricts options for future
policy-makers” (Kay, 2005, p. 558).
In a hard application of the concept of path dependency one would argue
that early decisions in a policy area result in a policy trajectory that is locked onto
a set course albeit one that might, in Esping-Andersen’s terms, be particular to a
certain type of policy regime. A hard application of the concept in relation to elite
sport development would lead one to suggest that a prior commitment to a social
democratic model of welfare and/or a commitment to mass participation in sport
would make the adoption of an elite athlete development policy difficult, as it would
require a break with established values of universalism and non-commodification.
A softer application of the concept would suggest that early decisions do not lock
a policy on a specific trajectory, but do significantly constrain subsequent policy
options (Kay, 2005; Pierson, 2000). As regards elite sport development, it might
be argued that while it may be possible to adopt an elite-focused policy the range
of policy instruments that could be adopted to achieve its implementation might

be path dependent. For example, it might be acceptable to support elite athletes
as long as elite development is seen as a by-product of a strong commitment to
mass participation. By contrast, an elite development policy that was disconnected
from mass participation, relying for example on early selection of potential high-
performance athletes, would be less acceptable.
In path dependency approaches, although the application of “increasing
returns” has received most attention in the field of economics (where “hard data”
predominates), Pierson (2000, p. 252) contends that “increasing returns arguments
are at least as relevant to an understanding of politics as they are to other areas of the
social sciences”. Indeed, it is argued that four features of politics make it particularly
prone to the notion of increasing returns: i) the central role of collective action; ii)
the high density of institutions; iii) the possibilities for using political authority to
enhance asymmetries of power; and iv) its intrinsic complexity and opacity (pp.
257-262). Despite this, there have been a number of criticisms in the application
of path dependency to public policy analysis (e.g., Kay, 2005; Pierson, 2000; Ross,
2007). Notable is the difficulty of borrowing a theory that has been so extensively
used in another field.
Despite the challenge of adapting such explanatory mechanisms it is argued
that the application of path dependency stretches the temporal horizon of sport
policy analysis and thereby provides a valuable lens through which to analyse
developments in different countries. Indeed, Pierson (2000, p. 252) claims that
arguments regarding increasing returns can redirect the questions that political
scientists ask, thereby “contributing to a richer appreciation of historical processes
in generating variation in political analysis”. In addition, there is also the potential
for path dependency to explain “not only why policies may be difficult to reform but
also why they become more complex overtime” (Kay, 2005, pp. 554-555). Finally, by
exploring the concept of increasing returns, attention is drawn to particular variables
which may in turn highlight sources of both political change and stability in certain
common political settings. In relation to this, a case in point is the contention that it
is the particular sequencing of events, or processes, that may provide a key part of
the explanation for divergent outcomes (Pierson, 2000).
Sport Development in Australia and Finland

What follows is an overview of the context within which sport development has
emerged, developed and changed in Australia and Finland. A chief concern is to
map the ways in which, and the degree to which, governments in both countries
have intervened in sport development activity and also to interrogate the relative
salience of the broader social and political environment for the sport development
policy process.
Australia
Green and Houlihan (2005) argue that the first significant intervention in the sport
policy sector by the Australian federal government did not occur until the early
1970s, with the election of a Labor Government following 23 years of Liberal Party
and National/Country Party coalition government. A federal Ministry of Tourism
and Recreation was established by the new Labor Government whose programs
reflected the administration’s main commitment to fostering mass participation;
at this time, elite sport development was a peripheral concern. Support for mass
participation over elite sport development is clear in a statement from the Minister
for Tourism and Recreation in 1972: “Our task lies … in meeting more basic needs,
in catering for masses, not just a small elite” (quoted in Semotiuk, 1986, p. 162).
As Green and Houlihan (2005) note, one of the defining moments for sport
development in Australia was the establishment, in 1981, of the Australian Institute
of Sport (AIS): a “critical juncture” for the emergence of a policy framework for
developing medal-winning elites in the country. The establishment of the AIS is
important for at least two reasons. First, on a political/philosophical level, the delay
in implementing findings from two reports in the 1970s (Bloomfield, 1973; Coles,
1975), which recommended the creation of an elite sports institute, reflected the
Liberal and National/Country Party’s aversion to intervention in the sport policy
sector. Yet, as Green and Houlihan (2005) also observe, the cross-party support
for the AIS (and therefore elite sport) was a clear indication of increasing policy
convergence between the two major political administrations during the 1980s.
Second, on a more symbolic level, the public outcry over the poor performances
of Australian athletes at the 1976 and 1980 Olympic Games signalled the positive
political capital to be gained from supporting the development of an elite sports
institute (Paddick, 1997).
Under the Liberal and National/Country Party Government, in the period
between 1975-1983, the Department of Tourism and Recreation was abolished only
for the incoming Labor Government to re-establish a department that included a Sport
portfolio in its remit - the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The Labor
Party also oversaw the creation of the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) in 1985.
The ASC distributes federal government funding for sport and, although the ASC’s
two main objectives cross-cut the mass participation/elite development spectrum,
the commitment to balance these twin objectives has been called into question. This
point is borne out by an influential government-sponsored report which argued that
“There is a view among some stakeholders that participation has been starved of
resources while Commonwealth Government programs have focused on elite sport
and that this situation needs to be addressed” (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999,
p. 73). Indeed, Magdalinski (2000) maintains that the establishment of the AIS and
the ASC during the 1980s signalled federal government (financial) support “that
would ensure Australia’s ‘return to glory’” (p. 317).
The decision in 1993 by the International Olympic Committee to award the

2000 Olympic Games to Sydney had a profound effect on the pace and direction of
federal sport policy organisation, administration and funding allocations throughout
the 1990s; a decision, moreover, which further strengthened the elite sport lobby
in Australia (Green & Houlihan, 2005). Green and Houlihan also suggest that
four points are worthy of note in this respect. First, policy direction for sport, in
general, in the 1990s was shaped by an increasingly centralised and federally-
funded organisational and administrative structure. Second, and clearly related to
the first point, at the heart of this organisational and administrative structure is the
overarching role of the ASC and AIS. The third point concerns the establishment in
1993 of the National Elite Sports Council (NESC), the primary purpose of which
was to facilitate greater co-ordination across all bodies involved in the development
of elite-focused programs (e.g., Pyke & Norris, 2001). The fourth and final point
relates to funding allocations for sport. The impact of the Sydney Olympic Games
for funding allocations, particularly in relation to NSOs, was signalled by a senior
ASC official:
If you look at the Commission statements about its purpose and where its funds
go, over the last three Olympics there was clearly a trend [towards elite sport
investment] over that period. With the awarding of the Olympics to Sydney the bulk
of the funding was quite clearly orientated toward getting results in Sydney to a
point that we disallowed the use of ASC funds in high performance for underpinning
programs as we got closer to the Games. (Interview: 26 September 2006)
What is patently clear from the above discussion is that, since the
establishment of the AIS in 1981 and the ASC in 1985, the sport development
policies of Australia’s federal administrations have led to the emergence of a
systematic, planned and increasingly scientific approach to developing the country’s
elite athletes. In relation to this, a recurrent and significant theme in the development
of Australian sport policy is the discourse surrounding relative funding allocations
for mass participation initiatives and those for elite level programs. In other words,
the political rhetoric of support for mass participation programs has not been
matched with comparable funding allocations provided for elite sport development.
As Hogan and Norton (2000) argue, funding has been targeted towards “the skill
development of talented athletes in the continuum of elite athlete ‛production’”
(pp. 215-216). Comments from a senior ASC official provide support for the
arguments regarding the continued disparity in funding:
70% of our money goes to high performance, 30% goes to participation, participation
as we see it feeds into high performance; without it you wouldn’t get it. It is effectively
a base for the high performance. (Interview: 25 September, 2006)
If increasing medal counts at the Olympic Games is the outcome sought from
policies framed around elite sport then, from the creation of the AIS, Australian
sport development priorities have yielded impressive returns. From Montreal in
1976 (5 medals)—pre-AIS—to Sydney in 2000 (58 medals) and Athens in 2004 (49
medals) the Australian federal government has witnessed ever-increasing returns

(i.e. medals) on its investment in, and support for, elite sport development. Yet,
some observers suggest that Australian sport is facing a critical moment as it moves
away from the euphoria of Sydney 2000 (Stewart-Weeks, 1997; Stewart, Nicholson,
Smith, & Westerbeek, 2004). While there is little argument that sport is an integral
part of the federal government policy mix, “At the moment the Commonwealth
Government is still searching for the right balance of excellence and participation”
(Stewart et al., 2004, p. 192).
The disparity of commitment to both ends of the sport development spectrum
by the federal government can be explored by analysing funding allocations for
non-elite sport development; in the 1999-2000 budget, for example, 78% of funding
was allocated to excellence in sport performance while 10% was directed towards
improved participation (Hogan & Norton, 2000). By 2006-2007 the AIS allocation
of funding across 26 sports was $20,386,283 with a further $48,303,000 allocated
to high performance programs in 49 NSOs. More recently the federal government
announced that it would allocate in excess of $125 million for excellence in sport,
with an additional $12.1 million to be allocated for the redevelopment of the AIS
and the establishment of an elite training base in Italy. In the corresponding period,
a total of $67 million is to be allocated for improving participation levels in sport
(Kemp, 2006). In short, the federal government commitment to the AIS and elite
sport does not show any signs of waning.
Disparity in funding is also evident with regard to funding grants allocated
to NSOs that have been identified as primary deliverers in relation to achieving elite
sport objectives and increased levels of participation. Funding allocated to NSOs by
the federal government to increase participation generally and for targeted groups,
in particular (e.g., women, indigenous people and people with disabilities), made up
a very small part of recent overall budget allocations. Furthermore, overall funding
to NSOs for these groups decreased between 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 (see Table
1). In 2005-2006, the overall funding allocated to NSOs to increase participation
was approximately 3% of the overall NSO allocation and, in 2007-2008, this
decreased to 1.6%. In the corresponding period, funding allocated for elite sport
was approximately 95% and 93% respectively of the total NSO grant allocation.
Given the disparity in funding, it is therefore not surprising that over the
past 25 to 30 years or so there has been little evidence of a dramatic increase in
the levels of sport participation (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999; Stewart et al.,
2004). This is also despite significant funding of grassroots sport at sub-national
government levels, where the primary responsibility for addressing mass sport
lies. Indeed, the Sport 2000 Task Force concluded that there has been a “decline
of numbers participating in organised sport during the last 25 years … [and]
participation has been starved of resources while Commonwealth Government
programs have focused on elite sport” (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999, p. 73).
This finding correlates strongly with Stewart et al. (2004), who maintain that “the
last 20 years of sport development has been accompanied by more than $1 billion
of Commonwealth Government funding, with most of it directed at elite sport”

(p. 189). In 2000-2001 the states and territories contributed a total of $875.2 million to
sport and recreation activities while local government contributed $1,050.1 million.
This is compared with Commonwealth Government contributions of $198.9 million
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002). Moreover, Bloomfield (2003) estimated that
the contribution of local government to sport and recreation was even greater, with
$1.13 billion allocated per year by local government, or almost 19% of the entire
Australian sport budget.
Table 1: NSO Grants and AIS allocations ($A)1
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
Targeted Sports Participation Growth program4 1,165,000 355,000 205,000
Indigenous Sport 700,000 700,000 700,000
CONNECT 360,000 85,000 240,000

Women and Sport Better Management
100,000 100,000 100,000
Framework2
Sport Leadership Grants for Women 34,925 55,330
Total - sport participation 2,325,000 1,274,925 1,300,330
AIS Allocation 17,808,000 20,386,283 21,216,250
High Performance3 48,303,000 45,122,200 52,361,100
National Talent Identification Not available 2,850,000 3,095,000
Total - elite sport funding 66,111,000 68,358,483 76,672,350
Total ASC funding to AIS and NSOs 69,468,500 79,932,660 81,952,680

Adapted from ASC (2005, 2006b, 2007) 5
Notes
1
Note that this table does not include all funding categories for NSOs.
2
In the 2005-2006 funding allocations to NSOs, there was only one funding stream which was allocated
to Women and Sport – it is unclear whether this included both the Women and Sport Better Management
Framework and Sport Leadership Grants for Women.
3
In 2005-2006 funding for high performance was included under “Total Sports Grant” to NSOs. It is
therefore unclear what percentage of this sum was directly allocated to high performance.
4
The Targeted Sports Participation Growth program was established by the Australian Sports Commission
in 2002, initially for 21 established sports. A key aim was to achieve increased and sustained levels of
sport participation.
5
As the Sport 2000 Task Force acknowledges, it is extremely difficult to obtain government-related sport
funding “information broken down into expenditure areas” (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999, p. 67)
and particularly over longer periods of time. However, while recognising this point, it is possible to
provide a “snapshot” view of relative funding allocations by the Commonwealth Government that points
to disproportionate distributions. Over 15 years ago, the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment
and Territories (1992, p. 14) published information on sport and recreation funding data from 1979-
1980 to 1989-1990. This information reveals, amongst other things, that the AIS (elite sport programs)
received funding per annum that increased from just over $A1 million in 1980-1981 to almost $A13.5
million in 1987-1988. For the same years, allocations for what was termed “recreation and fitness” (mass
participation programs) were just $A700,000 and $A671,000 respectively.
However, there have been a number of national programs, including Aussport,

established in 2002, and its predecessor Active Australia, which were created with
the purpose of increasing levels of physical activity. More recently the level of
commitment by the Commonwealth Government to increasing participation levels
appears to be growing with the announcement in 2004 of the Active After-schools
Community Program (AASC), a four-year $90 million participation program (ASC,
2005). In 2007, an additional $124.4 million was committed by the Commonwealth
Government to extend the program for a further three years (Brandis, 2007). Aimed
at increasing participation amongst primary school-aged children, the AAsC program
may be a precursor to moves away from the entrenched use of grassroots sport as a
platform for producing elite athletes:
We [ASC] have been able to generate more funding for grassroots [sport] but
largely on the back of issues such as obesity and physical activity not on the basis
that it will support pathways for a better high performance. (Interview: senior ASC
official, 26 September 2006)
Recent policy documents highlight the importance of sport in addressing
rising levels of obesity and declining levels of physical activity amongst youth,
with a particular concern being the “relatively low levels of physical activity among
children and the resultant health and physical development issues such as increasing
childhood obesity and declining motor skill development” (ASC, 2006a: 3; see also
Liberal Party & The Nationals, 2004). What remains unclear at this stage is whether,
on the one hand, the significant investment in the AASC program reflects a genuine
long-term shift in the prioritisation of grassroots sport as an area of sport policy
development or, on the other hand, whether this remains a fixed-term program with
limited impact on overall participation levels in the future. However, the lack of
any concerted resistance to the direction of the Commonwealth Government sport
policy over the last 30 years suggests that it is unlikely to change dramatically in the
immediate future (Stewart et al., 2004).
While the increase in funding during the build-up to the 2000 Olympics Games
was expected and indeed demanded from the Australian government, it is perhaps
surprising that this trend has continued given the increasing awareness surrounding
the health costs associated with growing levels of obesity and decreasing levels
of physical activity. Nevertheless, elite sport development remains a paramount
political and policy priority in Australia in the first decade of the twenty-first century.
As Stewart at al. (2004) argue, “any political party [in Australia] that includes a
severe sport budget cutback in their policy platform will do so at their electoral
peril” (p.192).
Finland
Finland stands in stark contrast to Australia (and more recently in nations where
neo-liberal, free-market thinking has predominated, e.g. Canada, New Zealand, the
UK and even in Singapore), where government investment in sport has focused on
developing elite sporting success (Houlihan & Green, 2008). Finnish sport policy
promotes sport programs which aim to increase levels of (mass) participation in
sport and physical activity. Finland’s success with regard to achieving high levels of
participation was acknowledged by the UK which considered Finland’s achievement
as an exemplar for British sport to strive towards (DCMS/Strategy Unit, 2002). High
levels of participation in sport and physical activity amongst Finnish adults was also
confirmed in the 1999 COMPASS survey, which indicated that Finland had been able
to attain levels of sport participation across various age groups and between gender
groups that few other countries had been able to achieve (COMPASS, 1999).
Since the late 1960s, Finnish sport policy has remained on a consistent
path where access to sport for the masses has been prioritised above that of elite
sport development. Over the past 35 years little deviation from this focus has been
evident, supporting what a number of authors have described as path dependency
(e.g., Deeg, 2001; Heinelt, 2005; Pierson, 2000). It is here that the work of Esping-
Anderson and his socio-economic and cultural foundations of state shaping
policy hypothesis appears particularly relevant to the trajectories in Finnish sport
development policy.
In contrast to the “neo-liberal policy frames” (Marsh, 2005, p. 23) that have
been at the forefront of Australian politics for at least the past two decades (e.g.,
Dean & Hindess, 1998; Lavelle, 2005; Wanna & Weller, 2003), Finland has been
characterised as a country that has adopted policies aligned with social democratic
principles (Huber & Stephens, 1998). By the late 1960s, an incomes policy system
had emerged sustained by a series of centre-left coalition governments. What
followed over two decades was a series of social reforms which saw relatively
high levels of welfare spending, the development of an extensive social and health
service sector and the development of a large public sector (Huber & Stephens,
1998; Nygård, 2006).
It was during the 1960s and 1970s that many aspects of social life became
part of the political sphere which resulted in the adoption of sport as a tool for social
policy purposes, particularly in relation to achieving goals with regard to health
(Woodward, 1986). Increasingly, political parties became involved in sport and,
with the modernisation of Finnish society, new connections between the state and
voluntary organisations, including sport, began to develop (Heikkala, Honkanen,
Laine, Pullinen, & Ruuskanen-Himma, 2003).
The emergence of the welfare state provided a favourable environment for
Sport for All (SfA) to develop with “sport and physical activity seen as part of
building a welfare society where sport and physical culture were part of our social
policy” (Interview: senior government official, 2 June 2005). Up until the 1960s,
however, the focus of Finnish sport policy had been firmly focused on supporting
traditional competitive sport. The development of Finnish sport and the Finnish
political system were closely related, both in respect of timing and substance, with
the political system having a major influence on the support and, at times, existence
of sporting organisations (Kiviaho, 1981). Therefore, the political shift to a social
democratic welfare state can be considered a “critical juncture” for the redirection of
Finnish sport policy towards SfA. As a senior Finnish academic observed:
Sport was considered part of social policy, which was the first time this happened in
sport history. Sport [became] part of the social, political, the welfare of the nation,
all the preventative things you could do with the help of sport were recognised
during those days. (Interview: 1 June 2005)
The shift towards supporting SfA principles was signalled by an extensive
period of facility development: between 1964 and 2002 the number of sporting
facilities in Finland increased from 14,148 to 29,280. Investment in sports facilities
continued with local government investing 16.7 billion Finnish marks between 1975
and 1990 (Stahl, Rutten, Nutbeam, & Kannas, 2002). It was not until 1979, however,
that this period of rapid facility development was formalised with the publication of
the first National Sport Facility plan (Stahl et al., 2002). The belief that the provision
of sporting facilities would facilitate increased levels of sport participation is one
that is central to the sport policy system. Indeed, a senior government official
explained that:
In our system we are trying to let all flowers grow, a broad spectrum, because
we believe genuinely that the more possibilities you have [through provision of
facilities] the more likely it is people will do something. (Interview: 2 June 2005)
Increased resources and an increasingly strong discourse regarding the
benefits of sport emerged during the 1970s. State documents began to reflect growing
support for SfA with a report by the planning section of the State Sports Council in
1970 including recommendations to improve opportunities for fitness sports (Vuori et
al., 2004), while in 1974 a government legislative committee was established which
presented arguments in favour of SfA (Stahl et al., 2002). During the late 1970s
and throughout the 1980s a number of government policies and strategy documents
reinforced the principles of SfA. A key document in the development of sport policy
in Finland was the report of the Sports Act Committee in 1976, which provided the
foundation for the passing of the Sports Act in 1980. The 1980 Sports Act not only
formalised the extant informal structures and processes regarding the provision of
sporting facilities and programs in Finland, but also officially recognised the social
significance of the sports movement (Heinilae, 1988).
As a result of the Sports Act, central government was able to influence
municipalities (and as a consequence NSOs) to shift their traditional focus on
providing for competitive sport towards providing sporting facilities and opportunities
for the masses. Subsidies were allocated to municipalities for the express purpose
of providing “sports secretaries” (local organisers) along with funds allocated to

local sports associations, and NSOs (Vuori et al., 2004). Intervention by the state
in directing the way in which municipalities both allocated capital and organised
their sport divisions raised an interesting contrast to the hands-off approach taken
towards NSOs. In part this reflected the values and beliefs of the Finnish political
system where autonomy of voluntary organisations is considered an important part
of society. In relation to this, a senior government official explained that:
The whole idea in our civil society is the idea of autonomy, even though it is a little
bit of a paradox that the state is subsidising volunteer activity, we are trying to
maintain a partnership but still let them have their own autonomy in these issues.
(Interview: 2 June 2005)
Despite the increased level of government commitment to SfA, clubs and
NSOs continued to emphasise competitive or elite sport (Koski, 1999). However,
a significant change occurred in 1993 with the structural reform of sporting
organisations. In 1991, driven by a desire to reduce the divisiveness of the political
ideology upon which the major NSOs were based, a lack of cohesiveness among
sporting organisations, and inefficiency due to duplication of programs and
structures, the government, together with the NSOs, entered an extensive period of
consultation with the aim of structural reform. The structural changes that occurred
in 1993 dramatically altered the face of Finnish sport, transforming it from a sector
divided by political affiliations towards a more coordinated and cohesive structure.
This was to be a “critical juncture” for the meshing of SfA principles into structural
change.
As part of the change an umbrella organisation, the Finnish Sports Federation,
and three Domain Organisations were formed. The Domain Organisations were
identified as having responsibility for three areas, youth sport, (Young Finland),
Sport for All (Sport for All Association) and elite sport (Finnish National Olympic
Committee). Although Young Finland and the Sport for All Association were
established in 1988 and 1961 respectively, it was not until the structural change
in 1993 that recognition of their role as Domain Organisations strengthened. It
was due to the overlap and duplication of work carried out by NSOs in relation
to youth sport, SfA and elite sport that the Domain Organisations were given
responsibility for overseeing activity and promoting and coordinating national
strategies in relation to their particular areas of responsibility. More significantly,
Domain Organisations assist in the preparation of data relating to the performance
of NSOs (through Management by Results, see below) and provide feedback to the
Ministry of Education (within which the Sports Division is located) regarding the
performance of different sports.
The structural change was quickly followed by the introduction of
Management by Results (MBR), a new managerial process which provided a
framework for the allocation of resources to NSOs. The allocation of state funds
through the MBR process was based on the performance of NSOs in three areas:
youth sport, SfA and elite sport; with 50% of an NSO’s funding allocated according
to its performance with regard to youth sport, 25% allocated according to SfA
results, and 25% according to results in elite or top-level sport (Heikkala & Koski,
1999). It is here that a paradox emerges however.
Despite the introduction of policies aimed at encouraging NSOs to focus on
youth and SfA, NSOs are not required to allocate resources accordingly. Although
a clear aim of the introduction of MBR was to professionalise NSOs, there
remained a reluctance by the state to interfere or directly impose its will on sporting
organisations. Therefore, “even if the money comes 50% for Sport for All … the
federations [NSOs] can decide how they want to use the money” (Interview: senior
NSO official, 7 March 2006). Nevertheless, the introduction of MBR impacted
upon the direction and activities of NSOs, with a two-fold effect. First, to influence
the focus of the NSOs in their activities and second to increase the efficiency and
professionalisation of Finnish sport (Heikkala & Koski, 1999). Indeed, a senior
NSO official argued that:
MBR … has meant that the national sport governing bodies’ Sport for All
[programs] are more professional in terms of their organisation. Nearly all national
sport governing bodies now have their own SfA program. It is better organised and
professional. (Interview: 9 March 2006)
Throughout the 1990s, Finnish sport policies continued to reflect the
government’s emphasis on providing sporting opportunities for all, together with
an increasing emphasis placed on the positive health benefits of sport and physical
activity (Vuori, Paronen, & Oja, 1998). Government priorities at this time were
outlined in the Report of the Sports Committee: The Direction of Finnish Sports
Policy for the 1990s with a key priority identified as “Well-being through exercise
and sports – Sports for All” (Vuori et al., 2004, p. 332). Continuing the focus on
providing for all groups in society, policies were also directed towards disadvantaged
groups through the Committee on Sports for People with Disabilities. Further
changes to state funding criteria in 1995 for NSOs meant that non-competitive sports
and physical activity for youth and adults was again reinforced (Vuori et al., 2004).
Together with the legislative framework, national projects were established
which reinforced the government’s commitment to SfA and health-enhancing
physical activity. The two national programs, “Finland on the Move”, in 1991, and its
successor, “Fit for Life” were implemented with the aim of providing opportunities
for, and motivating, ordinary citizens over 40 years of age to participate in regular
physical activity. Yet, the introduction of the national SfA programs was also
recognition by the Finnish government that sports clubs were unable (or unwilling)
to deliver this type of service to its members and therefore government intervention
was required (Wuolio, 2003). However, the previous focus by NSOs on competitive
sport appears to be shifting. Although NSOs remain the primary organisations
responsible for developing elite sport within their respective fields, acknowledgment
that NSOs have a social responsibility to encourage participation is also evident.
This point was reinforced by the CEO of a NSO who argued that, “for the health
of the nation and the people of Finland, we should get those people who are not
practising any sport to get practising sport” (Interview: 7 March, 2006).
The second Sports Act (1998) illustrated a continued focus on SfA principles
with a growing emphasis on health and well-being and the support of young
people’s growth and development, both of which required continued participation
in sport and/or physical activity to achieve these goals. While elite level sport was
recognised within the Sports Act as an activity which would be promoted, the criteria
for resource allocation continued to support the goals of SfA. State funding to sport
organisations was to be influenced by the “social significance” and the “quality and
extent” of the activities, while subsidies for sports facilities which met “the needs of
broad user groups” were to be promoted (Liikuntalaki, 1998).
Furthermore, funding allocated by the state to sport has continued to
reinforce the importance of SfA. Between 1995 and 2003 funding allocated to NSOs,
municipalities and the building and development of sport facilities has consistently
made up about 60% of the total state budget (see Table 2). It is not unreasonable
to argue that, given the emphasis placed upon the development of facilities which
cater for a broad range of users (rather than elite users only), the increasing emphasis
placed on SfA activities by municipalities and the introduction of MBR for NSOs,
state funding is primarily directed towards areas that support SfA. In contrast,
funding allocated to elite sport has consistently remained at much lower levels. In
1995 funding allocated by the state to elite sport was about 6% of the total budget.
Despite increasing to about 8% of the total budget in 1996, between 1997 and 2003,
support for elite sport has continued to fluctuate between 6.9% and 7.7% (Ministry
of Education, 2003). It is important to note, however, that these elite sport figures do
not include funding that NSOs may use for elite sport programs and they therefore
may under-represent the total funding allocated to elite sport. Nevertheless, what
has been consistent between 1995 and 2003 is the relatively low level of funding
targeted directly at elite sport development in comparison with areas that support
SfA.
As a strong culture of sport participation developed, government concerns
regarding the potentially negative aspects of elite sport were confirmed in 2001.
The positive testing of six Finnish athletes at the 2001 Lahti Nordic World Skiing
Championships, while a significant event for elite sport, also provided positive
feedback for the chosen policy path of SfA. Following a national inquiry there were
significant funding cuts to NSOs from both government and private sponsors. It was
estimated that Finnish sport lost between €10 to 15 million from sponsors and state
funding as a direct consequence of the incident (Interview: senior NOC official,
7 March 2006). As well as the financial implications, the doping incident confirmed
the negative aspects of elite sport and reinforced the argument that state investment
is better directed towards supporting SfA rather than elite sport.
Table 2: Distribution of State Funding 1995-20031 (€1000)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Sports Organisations 20,351 19,392 19,787 19,964 20,317 20,401 21,354 22,301 22,434
Finnish Olympic
2,422 2,691 2,472 2,523 2,523 2,691 2,758 2758 2,758
Committee
Building and/or
development of 10,596 10,932 13,741 14,649 14,105 14,072 14,044 14,638 14,386
sports facilities
Physical education 15,171 14,869 17,808 20,055 13,016 13,470 13,558 13,747 13,832
Municipality sports
17,878 16,778 15,347 14,891 15,410 15,637 15,708 15,547 15,363
activities
Sports Science 4,037 3,861 4,408 4,691 4,457 4,559 4,779 5,344 5,665
Others 2,826 3,378 5,093 6,734 8,450 9,064 9,421 10,039 11,307
Total 73,279 71,902 78,657 83,507 78,278 79,894 81,622 84,374 85,745
Adapted from Ministry of Education (2003)2
Notes
1
Monetary values have been scaled to 2003 value.
2
Elite sport allocation includes funding to the Finnish Olympic Committee (FOC), Finnish Paralympic
Committee, grants for athletes and coaches, Finnish Anti-doping Committee, Centre for Competitive and
Elite Sport and funding for significant events such as world championships. These figures have not been
specifically referred to in Table 2 as they were not available in disaggregated form. However, funding to
the FOC (included in Table 2 above) relates specifically to funding for elite sport. All figures in Table 2
were the most recently available and have been translated from Finnish into English.
The 2001 doping scandal was an event which further reinforced the path of
providing sporting opportunities for the masses and reinforced some of the negative
consequences of elite sport. On this issue, a senior Finnish Sports Federation
official commented that “No one really dares to talk about more investment [in
elite sport] … it’s not really …. a good thing today to talk about elite sport because
there are too many problems with doping and cheating and whatever [else] there
might be” (Interview: 9 March 2006). This draws attention to the complex aspect
of learning within politics and the social interpretations of complex environments.
In this respect, Pierson (2000, p. 260) argues that the use of supporting information
for a particular path of action means that “confirming information tends to be
incorporated and disconfirming information is filtered out”. The Minister of Culture,
who is responsible for government sport policy, reinforced this view in explaining
that winning in sport received too much emphasis and, as a result, this “drives the
athlete into hopeless, unthinking acts, there is no shame in losing honestly. The
shame lies in winning by questionable means” (Pyykkönen, 2003, p. 23).
Discussion and Conclusions

The argument that “The heavy hand of history may hang over the most transformative
of policy breakthroughs” (Hacker, 1998, p. 130) is persuasively attractive yet, as
Evans (2005, p. 279) notes, “it is a history and institutional structure peculiar to each
country”. This is a useful point to bear in mind as we analyse the policy trajectories
of sport development in Australia and Finland.
In the case of Australia, for the best part of three decades the federal
government has conceptualised “sport development” to a very large degree as the
means by which elite athletes might flourish. While international sporting success
matters for Australians, it appears to matter less, with regard to sport development
priorities, whether the country is governed either by a Labor or a Liberal-Country
administration. The disappointing performance of Australian athletes at the 1976 and
1980 Olympic Games resulted in cross-party political support for the development
of (elite) sport policy, primarily as a tool to promote national identity and to restore
Australia to its “rightful place” on the international sporting stage. Set against values
associated with Esping-Anderson’s liberal welfare regime, the explanation that
politics determines policy finds particular favour with regard to Australia. Along
with this is a compelling argument for, and example of, path dependent relationships.
Importantly, also apparent in the case of Australian sport development is evidence
of what Mahoney (2000, p. 507) terms as the importance of “contingent events
[which] set into motion institutional patterns or event chains that have deterministic
properties”.
So embedded are the institutional and administrative arrangements for elite
sport development in Australia, that the federal government has been unable or
unwilling to retrench from a position where it is highly supportive of elite sport
policy. This is despite calls for at least the past three decades for a re-thinking of
the government’s overt emphasis on elite development due to a perception that it
is detrimental to mass participation programs (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999;
Stewart et al., 2004). Notwithstanding recent federal government rhetoric around
extra funding for mass participation programs (Department of Industry, Science &
Resources, 2001), against a background of generalised concerns about rising obesity
levels in the population, and in children and young people in particular, the political
cost of retrenchment from support for elite development was just too great for this to
be a viable path to take (Stewart et al., 2004). In short, as Klein and Marmor (2006,
p. 903) explain, “history matters”.
Moreover, as Kay (2005) argues, “Path dependency encapsulates the insight
that policy decisions accumulate over time … [which] restricts options for future
policymakers” (p. 558). Several crucial decisions (contingent events) taken over
the past 25 to 30 years point to a strong argument for path dependency in the case
of Australia. First, the decision to prioritise elite (Olympic) athlete development
in the early 1980s - prominent here was the establishment of the AIS in 1981 -
was crucial as it signalled a significant break with previous government thinking
about sport priorities following poor performances by Australian athletes at the 1976
Montreal Olympic Games (Stewart et al., 2004). This event can be viewed not only
as a significant exogenous shock but also as a “critical juncture” or triggering event,
“which set development along a particular path” (Pierson, 2000, p. 263).
Second, the establishment of the Australian Sports Commission in 1985 as the
country’s leading governmental sporting agency reinforced the institutionalisation
of political commitment to elite development – despite continuing official federal
rhetoric around support for mass participation (Armstrong, 1997; Booth, 1995;
Commonwealth of Australia, 1999). Third, the decision to bid for the right to
host the 2000 Olympic Games and the subsequent award in 1993 of the Games
to Sydney meant that the government was not about to divert from this path - or
at least not consider divergence until after the Games. Fourth, the decision taken
after the Sydney Games—when political support for elite sport might have been
expected to be on the wane—to maintain relatively lower levels of funding for mass
participation programs than for elite development suggests that change is highly
unlikely in the near future at least.
Undeniably, Australia’s elite athletes have enjoyed considerable medal-
winning success at recent Olympic Games, in 2000 and 2004 in particular. Therefore,
with little evidence of a strong voice for the mass participant in Australia, and with
such strong public and media support for elite success, it is hard to conceive of
conditions in which the federal government would turn from the path chosen some
25 years ago. In this case, the political “costs” of switching from the path of elite
athlete development are deemed to be too high and it appears that, in Australia,
the quest for sustained excellence at the international level has been difficult to
forgo once established (Green, 2007). As Pierson (2000) argues in a different but
related context, as social and political actors “make commitments based on existing
institutions and policies, their cost of exit from established arrangements generally
rises dramatically” (p. 259). The dynamics of increasing returns and positive
feedback is evident here as steps taken in a particular direction by the Australian
federal government towards greater support for elite development triggered “a
self-reinforcing dynamic” (Pierson, 2000, p. 260). In other words, the generation
of increased numbers of Olympic medals and the concomitant positive (political)
symbolism that attaches itself to a successful Olympic nation means that, for Australia
at least, retrenchment from this position has become politically unthinkable (Stewart
et al., 2004).
The “street-level” consequences of such path dependent embeddedness for
sport development practitioners and management professionals in Australia may be
quite profound. The insight that configurations of complementary institutions within
which the procedures and interests of each is affected by the existence of others
(Deeg, 2001) is judicious in this case. The configuration of federal government
(cross-party) consensus, support and legitimation for elite sport development, and
the predominant power (largely but not confined to funding) exerted by the AIS and
the ASC for over two decades has resulted in a relatively bleak scenario for grassroots
level sport development. Indeed, Stewart et al.’s (2004, p. 74) review of Australian
national sport policy concluded that “While community sport development had
been frequently marginalised, the Commonwealth Government policy on elite sport
development expanded rapidly and gained widespread electoral support”. This is
clear from the comment by a senior official at the Australian Sports Commission that
“we are unashamed about high performance because in terms of supporting a lot of
our national teams there is no-one else who can provide that support with the quality
of the service or the level of the funding” (Interview: 25 September 2006). And the
CEO of an Olympic NSO offered this observation on the impact of complying with
the government’s elite objectives: “we are so focused on doing the things we have
to do [elite sport], so doing the things we would like to do [grassroots development]
becomes very, very difficult” (Interview: 27 September 2006).
Nevertheless, the establishment of the Active After-schools Community
program may signal a shift in the emphasis and ultimately the direction of Australian
sport policy. What is difficult to establish at this stage is whether the increased
resources for, and emphasis on, raising participation levels signals innovation
within an existing path (elite sport development) or a switch to a new path? It is the
existence of exogenous shocks, which Pierson (2000) argues can lead to paths being
disrupted, and it may therefore be argued that mounting evidence regarding obesity
levels and the associated health concerns (and costs) have acted as an external shock
to the sport policy subsystem. The importance of timing and sequencing of events
may prove useful in considering the impact of this event for, as Pierson (2000,
p. 264) argues, “the same event (e.g., an exogenous shock such as depression or war)
may have a different effect depending on the sequence of events in which it occurs”.
Therefore, placing the establishment of the AASC program amongst growing calls
for increased investment in grassroots and community sport and the past (rather than
future) hosting of an Olympic Games (Sydney 2000), raises questions as to whether
the Australian sport development environment is now ready for change. However,
given the historical nature of path dependency and the need for temporal analysis,
these questions must remain open to future empirical investigation.
In sum, while success on the international sporting stage has been lauded
for the best part of a quarter of a century, is it now possible for Australia to retrench
from the path of considerable investment and commitment to elite sport, or must it
continue to try and stay in the game? Given the sustained agreement between the
main political parties in Australia on the importance of elite sport success, it appears
highly unlikely that any political party, in the near future at least, would wish to
announce a retraction of support for international sporting glory. In this sense,
we would concur with Evans” (2005) summary of European health care systems
and path dependency. To paraphrase Evans, in the case of Australia “national
social values” (i.e. elite success) and “power structures” (p. 291) (see institutional
configuration above) have served to suppress (the few) voices that have argued for a
more equitable distribution of federal resources for sport development.
In contrast to Australia, Finland has conceptualised “sport development”

as a means of ensuring that all citizens have equal access to, and are encouraged
to participate in, sporting activities. Despite the contrasting concerns for sport
development found in Finland and Australia, it is also the “politics determines
policy” line of reasoning which holds particular resonance in the Finnish context.
The social democratic values and beliefs which emerged during the 1960s created an
environment which was predisposed to the goals of SfA, and from which the current
path of sport development in Finland emerged. As March and Olsen (1989) argue,
where there is a strong attachment to values some policy options can be viewed
more favourably and there can be a “logic of appropriateness” for particular policy
options. In line with the earlier theoretical discussion, there is also strong evidence
which supports the existence of path dependent relationships, a concept grounded in
the dynamic of increasing returns, which can be considered “as self-reinforcing or
positive feedback processes” (Pierson, 2000, p. 251).
The considerable investment made in developing an extensive network of
sporting facilities and the development of expertise with regard to implementing and
developing SfA programs and policies, highlight what Ross (2007, p. 593) maintains
are the “start-up, learning and coordination costs” which encourage investment
in the status quo. The continued commitment to ensuring all Finns had access to
sporting facilities was considered key to facilitating increased levels of participation
and further promoted values commonly associated with social democratic tenets of
universalism and egalitarianism. Further costs associated with the establishment of
Domain Organisations, the growing expertise and learning costs (which enhance
efficiency) are now embedded within the sport development system. As Ross (2007)
explains, the costs of retrenching from such considerable set-up expenses provide
an incentive to try and recover costs, and with a combination of past investment and
continued net pay-offs, renders the existing path more appealing than potentially
more efficient alternatives.
A further event which provided positive feedback and which reinforced
continued investment and support for SfA was the doping incident at the 2001 Nordic
World Skiing Championships. The incident confirmed for politicians, and provided
positive (political) reinforcement, that SfA is the correct path for sport development
in Finland. In the absence of any strong lobby group for elite sport development,
combined with the public outcry with regard to the “shame” associated with the
positive tests, little political incentive was provided for alternative paths of sport
development to be considered.
While it was argued that the establishment of the two Sports Acts (1980,
1998) formalised funding practices that were already in operation, Pierson (2000, p.
259) maintains that it is policies grounded in law and backed by the coercive power
of the state which signal what can, and what cannot be done, while also establishing
many of the “rewards and penalties associated with particular activities”. The
establishment of funding criteria that prioritised facilities and programs for the
masses, and the mandating of responsibility for the provision of facilities to the state
and municipalities, clearly reinforced the types of sport development activities to be

supported. Furthermore, the exercise of political power through legislation not only
favoured a particular path, but made it increasingly difficult to change or deviate
from the particular path due to the practical difficulties associated with conducting
legislative change. Not only did the introduction of legislation lock values and
systems in place which supported SfA, they also constrained behaviour with regard
to what was acceptable and possible (Deeg, 2001).
Changes to the structural landscape for NSOs in Finland, including the
establishment of the Domain Organisations and alterations to administrative
arrangements, provide further evidence of path dependency. Indeed Pierson (2000,
p. 259) argues that it is the existence of institutions that cements self-reinforcement
and “make[s] reversals of course increasingly unattractive over time”. As in
Australia, there is also the issue regarding what Deeg (2001, p. 10) refers to as the
“complementarity of a set of institutions” where the performance of an institution
is affected by the existence of other institutions around it. The close network of
inter-dependent relationships created between the Domain Organisations and NSOs
has created a situation where the effectiveness of each organisation is increasingly
affected by the existence and functioning of the other. While Domain Organisations
are involved in the performance assessment of NSOs, they are also reliant on NSOs
to assist them in achieving their organisational goals relating to the areas of youth,
SfA and elite sport. As Deeg (2007, p. 612) argues, if complementarities increase
returns to organisations, we “can readily assume that the institutions that create
complementarities will be all the more resistant to change”.
Finally, it is necessary to consider the utility of the theoretical concepts of
“politics determines policies”, “policies determine politics” and path dependency
in analysing sport development in Australia and Finland, as well as considering
the potential implications of our analysis for sport development practitioners and
management professionals. The importance of each country’s historical and political
context, heritage of institutions and collective social values has signalled that greater
explanatory weight be given to “politics determining policy” as a potentially useful
guide for informing the analysis of sport development in Australia and Finland.
The developmental view of path dependency has emerged as a useful analytic
tool for reviewing and analysing sport development policy in both countries and
provides a persuasive argument for the steady and consistent path of elite sport
development in Australia and SfA in Finland. Despite considerable variance in sport
development concerns between the two countries, the way in which sport policy
has developed supports Pierson’s (2000) claim that path dependent processes are
prevalent in the political sphere. Both Australia and Finland have remained on quite
specific sport development pathways with little deviation, despite intermittent calls
in Australia for increased consideration to be given to alternative (e.g., grassroots
sport development) policy options.
The institutional complementarity evident in both sport development
systems, and the path dependent relationships, signal to practitioners the difficulty
of diversion from current sport development pathways in Australia and Finland.

This also suggests that change is likely to be achieved only in response to a major
incident or crisis. It is this very point of how change occurs, which has been the
focus of much debate with regard to the deterministic nature of path dependency
(Deeg, 2001; Pierson, 2000; Ross, 2007). As such, an understanding of the potential
variables involved in stability and change, as discussed throughout, provides
practitioners and management professionals with perceptive insights regarding
the difficulties, challenges and potential alternatives of effecting change in their
respective fields.
References
Armstrong, T. (1997). Government policy. In W. Vamplew, K. Moore, J. O’Hara, R.
Cashman, & I. F. Jobling (Eds.), The Oxford companion to Australian sport
(Rev. ed.), (pp. 189-190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2002). Sport and recreation funding by government,
Australia, 2000-01. Available online: Retrieved on 17 August, 2007 from http://www.
abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@nsf/0/C1E4C4D3478C2D2DCA256C7500765137?open
Australian Sports Commission. (2005). Annual report 2004-2005. Canberra. Author.
Australian Sports Commission (2006a). Annual report 2005-2006. Canberra. Author.
Australian Sports Commission. (2006b). NSO 2006-07 grants and AIS allocation. Available
online: Retrieved on 20 June, 2007 from http://www.ausport.gov.au/funding/NSO_
funding%20_2006-2007.pdf
Australian Sports Commission. (2007). NSO 2007/08 grants and AIS allocation. Available
online: Retrieved on 12 December, 2007 from http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/
assets/pdf_file/0007/143692/NSO_grants_2007-08_for_web-Dec_07.pdf
Bergsgard, N. A., Houlihan, B., Mangset, P., Nødland, S. I., & Rommetvedt, H. (2007).
Sport policy: A comparative analysis of stability and change. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Bloomfield, J. (1973). Review of activities: The role, scope and development of recreation
in Australia. Canberra: Department of Tourism and Recreation.
Bloomfield, J. (2003). Australia’s sporting success: The inside story. Sydney: University
of New South Wales.
Booth, D. (1995). Sports policy in Australia: Right, just and rational? Australian Quarterly,
67(1), 1-10.
Brandis, G. (2007). More after school sporting support for Australian families. (media
release). Available online: Retrieved on 5 march, 2008 from http://www.minister.
dcita.gov.au/brandis/media/media_releases/2007/more_after_school_sporting_
support_for_australian_families/
Castles, F. G., & Mitchell, D. (1990). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or four? Canberra:
Australian National University.
Coles, A. (1975). Report of the Australian Sports Institute study group. Canberra:
Commonwealth Government Department of Tourism and Recreation.
Collins, S. (2008). An analysis of public policy toward adult lifelong participation in

sport in Australia, New Zealand and Finland. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Loughborough University, UK.
Commonwealth of Australia. (1999). Shaping up: A review of Commonwealth involvement
in sport and recreation in Australia. (Sport 2000 Task Force), Canberra: Author.
COMPASS (1999). A project seeking the co-ordinated monitoring of participation in
sports in Europe. London: UK Sport.
DCMS/Strategy Unit. (2002). Game plan: A strategy for delivering government’s sport
and physical activity objectives. London: Strategy Unit.
Dean, M., & Hindess, B. (1998). Governing Australia: Studies in contemporary
rationalities of government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Bosscher, V., Bingham, J., Shibli, S., van Bottenberg, M., & De Knop, P. (2008). The
global sporting arms race: An international comparative study on sports policy
factors leading to international sporting success. Oxford: Meyer and Meyer Sport.
Deeg, R. (2001). Institutional change and the limits of path dependency: The case
of German finance (Discussion Paper). Cologne: Max-Planck-Institut fur
Gesellschaftsforschung.
Deeg, R. (2007). Complementarity and institutional change in capitalist systems, Journal
of European Public Policy, 14, 611-630.
Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories. (1992). Government
expenditure on sport and recreation (Technical paper No. 4). Canberra: Author.
Department of Industry Science and Resources. (2001). Backing Australia’s sporting
ability: A more active Australia. Canberra: Author.
Esping-Anderson, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Esping-Anderson, G. (1999). Social foundation of post-industrial economics. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Evans, R. G. (2005). Fellow travellers on a contested path: Power, purpose and the
evolution of European health care systems. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and
Law, 30, 277-294.
Freeman, G. P. (1985). National styles and policy sectors: Explaining structured variation.
Journal of Public Policy, 5, 467-496.
Green, M. (2003). An analysis of elite sport policy change in three sports in Canada and the
United Kingdom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Loughborough University, UK.
Green, M. (2007). Olympic glory or grassroots development? Sport policy priorities in
Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, 1960-2006. International Journal of the
History of Sport, 24, 921-953.
Green, M., & Houlihan, B. (2005). Elite sport development: Policy learning and political
priorities. London: Routledge.
Green, M., & Oakley, B. (2001). Elite sport development systems and playing to win:
Uniformity and diversity in international approaches. Leisure Studies, 20, 247-267.
Greener, I. (2002). Understanding NHS reform: The policy-transfer, social learning, and
path dependency perspectives. Governance, 15(2), 161-183.
Hacker, J. (1998). The historical logic of national health insurance: Structure and sequence
in the development of British, Canadian, and U.S. medical policy. Studies in American
Political Development, 12, 57-130.
Heikkala, J., Honkanen, P., Laine, L., Pullinen, M., & Ruuskanen-Himma, E. (2003). The
story of exercise and sport. Finland: Suomen Liikunta ja Urheilu.
Heikkala, J., & Koski, P. (1999). Reaching out for new frontiers: The Finnish physical
culture in transition in the 1990s. Finland: University of Jyvaskyla.
Heinelt, H. (2005). Do policies determine politics? (School for Policy Studies Working
Paper Series No. Paper Number 11). Bristol: School for Policy Studies.
Heinilae, K. (1988). Social research on sport in Finland. Sportwissenschaft 18(1), 9-28.
Henry, I. P. (2001). The politics of leisure policy (2nd ed.). Houndmills: Palgrave.
Hogan, K., & Norton, K. (2000). The ‘price’ of Olympic gold. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, 3, 203-218.
Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, policy, and politics: A comparative analysis. London:
Routledge.
Houlihan, B. (2005). Public sector sport policy: Developing a framework for analysis.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 40(2), 163-184
Houlihan, B., & Green, M. (Eds.). (2008). Comparative elite sport development: Systems,
structures and public policy. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Houlihan, B., & White, A. (2002). The politics of sport development: Development of sport
or development through sport? London: Routledge.
Howlett, R., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy cycles and policy sub-systems.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Huber, E., & Stephens, J. (1998). Internationalisation and the social democratic model.
Comparative Political Studies, 31, 353-397.
Kay, A. (2003). Path dependency and the CAP. Journal of European Public Policy, 10,
405-420.
Kay, A. (2005). A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public
Administration, 83, 553-571.
Kemp, R. (2006). Funding boost for Australian sport. (Media release by the Minister
for Arts and Sport). Available online: Retrieved on 10 May, 2006 from http://www.
minister.dcita.gov.au/kemp/media/media_releases/funding_boost_for_australian_
sport
Kiviaho, P. (1981). Regional distribution of sport organisations as a function of political
cleavages. In J. W. Loy., Jr., G. S. Kenyon & B. McPherson. Sport, culture and
society: A reader on the sociology of sport (2nd edn.). (pp. 259-265). Philadelphia:
Lea and Febiger.
Klein, R., & Marmor, T. (2006). Reflections on policy analysis: Putting it together again.
In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. Goodin (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of public policy.
(pp. 892-910). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koski, P. (1999). Characteristics and contemporary trends of sports clubs in the Finnish
context. In K. Heinemann (Ed.). Sports clubs in various European countries.
(pp. 293-316). Stuttgart: Schorndorf Hofmann.
Krauss, R. (1990). Recreation and leisure in modern society. (4th ed.). New York: Harper
Collins.
Lavelle, A. (2005). Social democrats and neo-liberalism: A case study of the Australian
Labor Party. Political Studies, 53, 753-771.
Leibfried, S. (1990). The classification of welfare state regimes in Europe. Paper presented
at the Social Policy Association Annual Conference, University of Bath.
Liberal Party and The Nationals. (2004). The Howard Government election (2004) policy:
Building Australian communities through sport. Canberra: Liberal Party.
Liew, L. H. (2005). China’s engagement with neo-liberalism: Path dependency, geography
and party self-reinvention. Journal of Development Studies, 41, 331-352.
Liikuntalaki (Sports Act) 18.12.1998/1054. Available online: Retrieved on 14 March, 2008
from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/19981054
Lowi, T. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review,
33, 298-310.
Macintosh, D. (1991). Sport and the state: The case of Canada. In F. Landry, M. Landry
& M. Yerle (Eds.), Sport, . . . the third millennium (pp. 269-275). Sainte-Foy: Les
Presses de l’Université de laval.
Macintosh, D., & Whitson, D. (1990). The game planners: Transforming Canada’s sport
system. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Magdalinski, T. (2000). The reinvention of Australia for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.
International Journal of the History of Sport. 17, 305-322.
Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29, 507-
548.
March, J., & Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organisational basis of
politics. New York: Free Press.
Marsh, I. (2005). Neo-liberalism and the decline of democratic governance in Australia:
A problem of institutional design? Political Studies, 53(1), 22-42.
Ministry of Education. (2003). Sports in light of statistics: Basic statistical information
2003 (liikuntatoimi tilastojen valossa - perustilastot vuodelta 2003). Retrieved on
April 12, 2006, from http://www.minedu.fi/julkaisut/liikunta/2005/opm24.pdf
Nygård, M. (2006). Welfare-ideological change in Scandinavia: A comparative analysis of
partisan welfare state positions in four Nordic countries, 1970-2003. Scandinavian
Political Studies, 29, 356-385.
Paddick, R. J. (1997). Amateurism. In W. Vamplew, K. Moore, J. O’Hara, R. Cashman, &
I. F. Jobling (Eds.), The Oxford companion to Australian sport (Rev. ed.), (pp. 11-15).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pickup, D. (1996). Not another messiah: An account of the Sports Council, 1988-93.
Edinburgh: Pentland Press.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American
Political Science Review, 94, 251-267.
Pyke, F., & Norris, K. (2001, September). Australia from Montreal to Sydney: A history of
a change in model. Paper presented at 2nd International Forum on Elite Sport, San
Cugat, Catalonia, 7-16.
Pyykkönen, T. (2003). Elite sport is a lot, but not everything. Motion - Sport in Finland,
2, 22-23.
Roche, M. (1993). Sport and community: Rhetoric and reality in the development of British
sport policy. In J. C. Binfield & J. Stevenson (Eds.), Sport, Culture and Politics (pp.
72-112). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Ross, F. (2007). Questioning path dependence theory: The case of the British NHS. Policy
and Politics, 35, 591-610.
Ruane, J., & Todd, J. (2007). Path dependence in settlement processes: Explaining
settlement in Northern Ireland. Political Studies, 55, 442-458.
Semotiuk, D. (1986). National government involvement in amateur sport in Australia
1972-1981. In M. L. Krotee & E. M. Jaeger (Eds.), Comparative physical education
and sport. (pp. 159-171). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Siaroff, A. (1994). Work, women and gender equality: A new typology. In D. Sainsbury
(Ed.). Gendering welfare states. London: Sage.
Stahl, T., Rutten, A., Nutbeam, D., & Kannas, l. (2002). The importance of policy orientation
and environment on physical activity participation - a comparative analysis between
Eastern Germany, Western Germany and Finland. Health Promotion International,
17(3), 235-246.
Stewart, B., Nicholson, M., Smith, A., & Westerbeek, H. (2004). Australian sport: Better
by design? The evolution of Australian sport policy. London: Routledge.
Stewart-Weeks, M. (1997). The third wave: Developing a post-2000 sports policy
framework. The Sport Educator, 9(3), 4-11.
Thelen, K., & Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics.
In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth (Eds.), Structuring politics: Historical
institutionalism in comparative analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vuori, I., Lankenau, B., & Pratt, M. (2004). Physical activity policy and programme
development: The experience in Finland. Public Health Reports, 119, 331-345.
Vuori, I., Paronen, O., & Oja, P. (1998). How to develop local physical activity promotion
programmes with national support: The Finnish experience. Patient Education and
Counselling, 33, 111-120.
Wanna, J., & Weller, P. (2003). Traditions of Australian governance. Public Administration,
81(1), 63-94.
Wilson, J. (1994). Playing by the rules: Sport, society and the state. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press.
Woodward, S. C. (1986). Finnish sport structures: An overview. Momentum (Edinburgh),
11(1), 51-61.
Wuolio, T. (2003). Fit for life programme gets adults moving gently. Motion - Sport in
Finland (Helsinki), 10(10), 10-12.

Green 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sport Development in Australia

Management Review, 2008,and

Policy, Politics and Path Dependency:

KEYWORDS: sport development, elite sport development, Sport for All,

Historically, government interest in sport as an area of public policy could be

social inclusion, community development, education and the achievement of elite

Policy, Politics and Path Dependency

Perhaps more significant is the work of Esping-Andersen and his analysis of

of policy instruments that could be adopted to achieve its implementation might

Sport Development in Australia and Finland

The decision in 1993 by the International Olympic Committee to award the

medals) the Australian federal government has witnessed ever-increasing returns

of Commonwealth Government funding, with most of it directed at elite sport”

Table 1: NSO Grants and AIS allocations ($A)1

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

Targeted Sports Participation Growth program4 1,165,000 355,000 205,000

Indigenous Sport 700,000 700,000 700,000

CONNECT 360,000 85,000 240,000

Total - sport participation 2,325,000 1,274,925 1,300,330

AIS Allocation 17,808,000 20,386,283 21,216,250

High Performance3 48,303,000 45,122,200 52,361,100

National Talent Identification Not available 2,850,000 3,095,000

Total - elite sport funding 66,111,000 68,358,483 76,672,350

Total ASC funding to AIS and NSOs 69,468,500 79,932,660 81,952,680

However, there have been a number of national programs, including Aussport,

of providing “sports secretaries” (local organisers) along with funds allocated to

Table 2: Distribution of State Funding 1995-20031 (€1000)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Discussion and Conclusions

In contrast to Australia, Finland has conceptualised “sport development”

and municipalities, clearly reinforced the types of sport development activities to be

of diversion from current sport development pathways in Australia and Finland.

Collins, S. (2008). An analysis of public policy toward adult lifelong participation in

You might also like